I've released my documentary film on the history of the right to arms, "In Search of the Second Amendment." It stars twelve professors of constitutional law, plus Steve Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, and Clayton Cramer. You can order the DVD here. And here's the Wikipedia page on it. SUPREME COURT SPECIAL: additional orders only $10 each.

So Cliff is a self-described "gun control advocate" who would admittedly "take pause" if indeed it is true that guns save hundreds of thousands of lives each year? And Cliff says the claim needs to be "fully explored for veracity."

In other words, Cliff, you've done no research of your own before reaching your position in the debate. The "claim" that guns save far more lives than are taken and prevent more crimes each year than are committed with guns has been proven in many studies and surveys - perhaps the most notable being a study done by the Department of Justice under the Bill Clinton administration, which was the most anti-gun-rights, pro-gun-control administration in the history of this country. Very nearly every single survey ever done, no matter who performed the survey, indicates that guns are used in self-defense (so called "defensive gun uses" or "DGUs") anywhere from a few hundred thousand times, to over 2 million times each year in the United States. In some of those surveys and studies, the anti-gun bias of the authors is obvious, as they try to explain away the numbers they are surprised to find.

The plain, simple reality is, guns are used defensively, to prevent injury or death from unlawful attack, far more often than they are used to inflict injury or death. One of the best sites on the web for researching the gun control debate and getting emotionless facts is http://www.guncite.com/. Take some time and do some reading.

i also notice that Cliff has the moral fiber of an alley cat in that he does not differentiate between an innocent law abiding woman preserving her own life at the cost of the attackers life. He gives them both equal importance. Which is stupidly juvenile and naive to the extreme.

The assailant voluntarily put his life at risk when he designed to commit a crime against an innocent. The woman who successfully defended herself made no decisions that led to the outcome. All those belonged to the dead criminal.